1University of Manitoba, Department of Sociology – Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1590/CC0101-32622017176122
CHILDCARE IN CANADA
Susan Prentice1
ABSTRACT: Childcare is underdeveloped in Canada even though the country is a rich federation. Unlike many better-developed social policies, childcare services are delivered primarily through voluntary, non-proit or commercial markets rather than by governments. his policy framework is disadvantageous for all children and families, and has particularly severe consequences for rural, remote and northern Canadians. his article provides an overview of childcare services outside of towns and cities, considering how Canada’s political system of federalism and its liberal social welfare policy architecture work against high quality and equitable childcare services.
Keywords: Canada. Federalism. Liberal welfare regime. Women’s equality. Rural and aboriginal childcare.
O desaio do atendimento à criança rural no Canadá
uma visão geral dos servidos de atenção à infância fora das cidades, considerando (a) como o sistema político canadense de federalismo e (b) sua arquitetura política liberal de bem-estar social trabalham contra a alta qualidade e equidade dos serviços.
Palavras-chave: Canadá. Federalismo. Regime de bem-estar social liberal. Igualdade feminina. Atendimento à infância rural e aborígene.
INTRODUCTION
C
anada is a rich country with many well-developed social pro-grams, yet childcare services are not among them. For Canada’s 4.8 million children under the age of 12 years, there are just 1.2 million licensed childcare spaces in group centres and licensed fam-ily homes (FRIENDLY et al., 2015). his means just 25% of Canada’s children have access to a regulated early learning and childcare space. Access to childcare worsens when the region is taken into account, as childcare services are mainly found in cities and towns. Rural, northern and remote regions of Canada are particularly under-served, as are Ab-original communities1. Although Canada’s children can be found all overthe map, few who live outside urban areas have access to quality early childhood education and care2.
Overall, childcare spaces are so lacking in Canada that parents who are in the system talk about their good fortune in “winning the lottery”. Families who can ind and aford a childcare space perceive they have good fortune, rather than believe they have a right to childcare. Al-banese and Farr (2012) explain that Canadian mothers regularly “invoke the notion of luck when they describe how they have found and managed their daily child care arrangements”. In the absence of quality childcare, work-family balance, women’s equality, children’s rights, Indigenous rec-onciliation, and other important social goals are severely compromised.
Canada is a big country, with a landmass of almost 10 million km2, stretching 5,187 km from the Paciic to the Atlantic oceans. Yet most
of its 35 million residents (an estimated 90%) live within 160 km of the US/Canada border. his densely populated belt, mapping onto the 49th
parallel, contains nearly every major urban centre of Canada. Despite popular images of Canada as a wilderness, 81% of Canadians live in an urban area, and Canada has been a predominantly urban country for nearly a century (STATISTICS CANADA, 2011a). Nevertheless, more than 6.3 million Canadians still live in rural areas, deined by the national statistical agency as “areas with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants and a population density below 400 people per square kilometer”3.
At one in ive, the proportion of people living in rural areas in Canada is among the lowest of the G8 countries (STATISTICS CANADA, 2011a). In the words of one Canadian overview, the rural, remote and northern communities are a “kaleidoscope of diversity that includes changing demographics, non-standard employment patterns, large geographic distances, cultural and linguistic diferences and service delivery challenges” (CCAAC, 2005, p. 5).
the roll of market dice, rather than entitlement. It argues that Canada’s political system of federalism and its liberal social welfare policy archi-tecture work against high quality and equitable childcare services for all children, resulting in even more adverse efects for women and children in rural, northern and remote regions.
FEDERALISM AND LIBERAL SOCIAL WELFARE ARCHITECTURE
Canada was founded as a country 150 years ago, although In-digenous people had lived on the land now called Canada for thousands of years. Since its founding in 1867, Canada has been a federation with a division of power between the national government and the country’s ten provinces and three northern territories, as well as with First Nations. A series of legal documents specify the political responsibilities of the various levels of governments, and each of these has posed challenges to the development of comprehensive childcare services. Equally import-ant, Canada’s political culture and history has been markedly “liberal”, in Esping-Andersen’s (1990) use of the term. Like other liberal welfare re-gimes, Canada provides many services through the family or the market, instead of the state, and this has also profoundly marked the develop-ment of childcare services.
Federalism shapes all aspects of social policy in Canada. his complex federal and institutional structure means national and sub-national government power is formally stratiied by legislation, as well as informally as successive federal governments have sought various-ly to strengthen or weaken national leadership. In practice, this division of power has often meant long squabbles in which the provinces and the central government each identify the other as being responsible for policy failings, or in which First Nations and the national government dispute whose responsibility it is. Childcare has particularly sufered in this respect (FRIENDLY & PRENTICE, 2009; FRIENDLY & WHITE, 2012).4
provinces. he federal government has no formal power to regulate a provincial social service. When it comes to childcare, provinces set stan-dards for health and safety, staf qualiications, curriculum and other quality measures. Still due to the federal government’s having greater taxation powers — and hence has larger revenues than provinces — it of-ten uses its purse, i.e. its inancial power, to inluence provincial action. It does so by transferring funds to provinces to help inance their social services. Ottawa can, and usually does, set conditions and terms on these transferred funds (CAMERON, 2009).
A particularity of Canadian federalism is how it deals with Indigenous people (PEACH & RASMUSSEN, 2005). Under the much-criticized Indian Act, the federal government has legislative responsibility for First Nations. his is contradictory, because Ab-original peoples are recognized as one of the founding nations of Canada. In fact, Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act recognizes the “in-herent right of Aboriginal self-government”. In social services, this aspect of federalism has generated considerable negative outcomes: while other residents of a province receive social services under provincial regulations, on-reserve First Nations’ services are gener-ally organized through Indigenous and Northern Afairs Canada5.
he federal government has systematically neglected its duty to First Nations, chronically under-funding social services for Aboriginal people (FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCI-ETY OF CANADA, 2015).
because it fails to spend the recommended minimum 1% of Gross Do-mestic Product (GDP) on ECEC services (UNICEF, 2008; WHITE & FRIENDLY, 2012).
In addition to federalism and institutional arrangements, Canada performs poorly on childcare for another reason: it is a liberal welfare state6. Liberalism is one of the “three worlds of welfare” identiied
by Esping-Andersen (1990), and liberal welfare regimes are character-ized by an approach that is neither woman-friendly nor child-friendly (HERNES, 1987; PRENTICE, 2009). All welfare regimes organize a particular pattern of relationships among and between individuals and families, the market, the state, and civil society — the four points form-ing a “welfare diamond” (EVERS et al., 1994). As Jane Jenson (2015) explains the metaphor, each point of the diamond is simultaneously a source of well-being and an instrument for risk-sharing. Markets, for example, allow people to purchase what they need — but they require cash, which is earned through paid labour in the market.
he commitment to market provision in liberal regimes might be less troubling if it were paired with strong regulatory frameworks that ensured quality, regardless of the provider’s auspice as not-for-proit, for-proit or public. A mixed economy of childcare providers with strong oversight could mitigate the weak regulations and standards character-istic of markets with a high degree of commercial service. For example, strong controls on price ceilings, child-staf ratios, and staf training could temper the market’s tendency to proit maximization. Liberal re-gimes, however, have resisted such protective oversight when it comes to childcare (MORGAN, 2003; WHITE & FRIENDLY, 2012). Moreover, rent-seeking (deined as the practice of manipulating public policy as a strategy for increasing proits) also characterizes the childcare sector in liberal regimes — the commercial sector successfully lobbies for its inan-cial self-interest (PRENTICE, 2000; BRENNAN, 2007).
he liberal model of social provision has ideational character-istics, as well as policy preferences. Among other things, gender equality assumes low importance. Canada has failed to meet its international obli-gations to ensure childcare services, even though it became a signatory to the United Nation (UN)’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1981. he latest review by the UN of Canada’s compliance with CEDAW expressed concern with Canada’s failure to ensure services and urged the adoption of a rights-based national childcare framework, calling on Canada to “intensify its eforts” to provide suicient numbers of afordable childcare facilities (CEDAW, 2016). Likewise, although Canada has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, little is done to actualize the Convention’s nominally binding promises (FRIENDLY, 2006).
A combination of policy and ideational factors has created a se-ries of contradictions in Canadian childcare. White and Friendly (2012) argue the incongruence between policy goals and policy implementation is troublesome in three ways. First, public spending is too low to inance services at equitable levels. Second, demand-side delivery of public funds (primarily through subsidizing parent fees) does not allow for quality ser-vices. Finally, targeted services mean than many families fail to beneit.
a major factor explaining the path that childcare policy and provi-sion has taken. Equally important, welfare regime theory illuminates how liberal social provision has resulted in a particular kind of mixed economy of childcare. In combination, these forces have shaped the distribution of childcare all across the country. In rural areas, howev-er, these factors have compounded in particularly troublesome ways, resulting in childcare milieu that are markedly inferior to those of urban Canada.
RURAL CHILDCARE
Canada has a patchwork of childcare services, meeting the needs of just one in four children for the country as a whole. Rural Canadians have even less access — and “rural Canada is in trouble” (REIMER, 2007, p. 3). A combination of depopulation and population aging characterizes most rural areas. he best estimate is that the popu-lation of rural Canada will continue to fall, as it has been dropping over recent years (MOAZZAMI, 2015). A small uptick between the last two censuses gives little reason to think otherwise: between 2006 and 2011, Canada’s rural population increased by just 1.1% compared to Canada’s overall growth rate of 5.9% — meaning the rural share of Canada is in decline (STATISTICS CANADA, 2011a). Rural, remote and north-ern regions rarely attract new immigrants, who tend to settle in urban centres (REIMER, 2007). Nevertheless, more than half of the country’s 1.4 million Aboriginal people (First Nations, Inuit and Métis) live in rural and northern areas (MOAZZAMI, 2015).
An earn-ing gap characterizes rural men and women’s wages: on average, earnAn earn-ings in remote rural areas are about 30% lower than earnings in urban centres (MOAZZAMI, 2015). he size of the rural population varies greatly, from a low 14% in Ontario to a high of well over 50% in Prince Edward Island and the Territories (STATISTICS CANADA, 2011a) (Table 1). Yet, most rural areas are not agricultural: only 7% of rural Canadians are involved in farming (FRIENDLY et al., 2016).
Friendly et al. (2016) argue that rural families need and value child care for many of the same reasons that non-rural Canadians do: to support parental employment; to provide early childhood education and socialization; to strengthen their communities; as well as the particular reason of addressing safety. Farms are one of the few workplaces where
Table 1
Childcare access in rural Canada.
Source: Friendly et al. (2013; 2015), Statistics Canada (2011a) and <http://www.statcan. gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo62a-eng.htm>.
Percentage of population living in
rural areas, 2011
Percentage of children aged 0-12 for whom there
is a childcare space, 2012
Newfoundland 41 11.2
Prince Edward Island 53 20.8
Nova Scotia 43 15.1
New Brunswick 48 22.9
Québec 19.4 37.4
Ontario 14.1 15.4
Manitoba 28 16.3
Saskatchewan 33 7.6
Alberta 16.9 15.3
British Columbia 13.8 18
Yukon 39 26.8
North West Territories 42 21.7
Nunavut 52 11.8
children are regularly present. Farm children are exposed to greater dan-gers than are non-farm children. he proof is the fact that injuries and fatalities among farm children are much higher than in the general pop-ulation. A main cause of injury and death among farm children is related to riding on farm machinery, or being present at a worksite. Very young children are at even higher risk. Close to half of fatalities and over a third of child injuries involve children aged 1-6 years. his is a testament to the vulnerability of young children on farms (WATSON, 2001; PREN-TICE, 2007b).
It is clear from this quick overview that rural Canada is far from homogenous. And, yet, the childcare realities across rural and northern Canada share remarkable similarities7. Two main factors are at
play: low population density and the prevalence of non-standard hours and seasonal work. Together, these intensify market failure.
SPACES AND ACCESS
One consequence of the lack of regulated childcare is that ru-ral Canada relies heavily on informal care: care outside the home by a relative is more popular for children who live in a rural community com-pared to children who live in an urban setting (BUSHNIK, 2006), even though parents prefer regulated services (MARTZ & BAUER, 2005; SQUIRES, 2006).
Transportation is a key issue for parent access. While schools ensure access through busing, this solution is unavailable for most child-care programs. Solutions to the problem of distance will require lexibility and creativity. One community group suggested a possible solution could be “mobile childcare facilities,” especially for seasonally-intensive periods of need such as harvesting (CALHOUN et al., 2005, p. 4).
PARENT FEES AND SUBSIDIES
Because wages are lower in rural than in urban areas, rural parents ind childcare costs a particular challenge. Fees vary widely across Canada and are based on the age of the child everywhere, except Québec, and often difer between centres and licensed family homes. Urban infant childcare costs range from a high of $ 1,649 a month ($ 19,788/year) in Toronto to a low of $ 164 per month ($ 1,968/year) — a diference of ten times (MACDONALD & FRIENDLY, 2016). Fees in rural areas have not been studied, but are likely similar. Importantly, rural fees are also likely following the national pattern, and rising much faster than the cost of living. Between 2014 and 2016, childcare fees across urban Canada rose 8% (compared to a 2.5% inlation rate) (MACDONALD & FRIENDLY, 2016).
high, providers can charge higher fees. Even in the three highly regulated provinces, providers may be willing to forego provincial funds in order to charge what the market may bear. In Manitoba, for example, many rural family home childcare providers charge more than the base fee (PREN-TICE et al., 2016).
QUALITY AND STAFFING
As Friendly et al. (2016) summarize: “inding and retaining qualiied staf… is signiicantly harder in rural, remote and northern areas due to inancial pressures keep wages low and to limited career op-tions.” One national overview of rural childcare declares that after child safety, this is the most important issue for the ield, since “rural, farm and seasonal workers’ children should have an equal right to quality child care as any other children” (WATSON, 2001, online).
Retention and turnover are a major problem for both home and centre-based providers in rural areas. One reason for this is that training opportunities in post-secondary institutions are scarce, and are not ofered in a way that adequately meets the needs of rural residents. Even in 2017, Internet services or distance education supports are not readily available in many communities. here are often language or cul-tural barriers to training that makes it diicult to recruit new students to available programs. Transportation to education programs is also a challenge. While these are barriers for all potential rural ECEs, they are particularly complex for Aboriginal people who may wish to enter child-care (BALL, 2005; PRESTON, 2014).
In particular, training for family home care is unavailable even though “individuals operating family child care homes would ac-cess training if it were ofered in a more lexible manner” (WATSON, 2001, online). Some research has suggested that “caregivers may need to be trained locally since it may be diicult to recruit from outside the community for these jobs, and the local labour pool may not have the requisite skills” (CALHOUN et al., 2005, p. 4).
to receive better wages, working conditions and beneits (CCAAC, 2005). Without increased wages, the loss of trained ECEs is likely to continue.
FACILITY VIABILITY
he market model (inanced by parent fees and delivered by private non-proit and for-proit providers) makes initiating and maintaining childcare a particular challenge for rural service providers. Some provinces adjust their funding formulae to account for higher oper-ating costs in rural areas. For example, Ontario’s 2013 childcare funding formula includes a Rural and Small Community Measure (RSCM) to guide its speciic allocations, and New Brunswick has a speciic funding program that makes grants available to start up rural childcare programs (FRIENDLY et al., 2016). Other provinces, such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have no special programs to help rural childcare, although Manitoba has a Small Centre Grant that may help some rural facilities and Saskatchewan has a program designed for northern centres.
Rural realities are often not addressed in provincial policy and funding programs. A rural childcare report from Saskatchewan stressed the importance of obstacles such as “dependable transporta-tion, reliable snow removal, geographic isolatransporta-tion, limited resources for assistance and training, low fees, seasonal unemployment of working families and a general lack of a strong support system” as barriers to establishing regulated child care centres in rural settings (MARTZ & BAUER, 2005, p. 15).
ABORIGINAL FAMILIES AND CHILDCARE
Nearly half of all Aboriginal Canadians live in rural areas. When Aboriginal families live on reserves, the federal government is responsible for the costs of social services such as childcare. his jurisdictional division of powers haunts Indigenous commu-nities, since the federal government has long discriminated against First Nations Children (FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA, 2015; CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, 2016; GALLOWAY, 2016). Canada’s colo-nial history of cultural genocide is now oicially acknowledged, and discriminatory treatment is being challenged as Canada seeks rec-onciliation and to redress past wrongs. he magisterial report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) included a call for the federal, provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments “to devel-op culturally- apprdevel-opriate early childhood education programs for Aboriginal families.” (TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COM-MISSION OF CANADA, 2016, p. 152). his would include, among other aspects of curriculum, the teaching of Indigenous languages and cultural practices.
Services for Aboriginal children must acknowledge the “di-rect and indi“di-rect, continuing and insidious, multi-generational impacts arising out of the trauma of the Residential School system” (NWAC, 2005, p. 5) which saw young children forcibly removed from their fami-lies. he Native Women’s Association of Canada bluntly claims that “we have an acute need for more early learning and child care than any oth-er group in Canada” (NWAC, 2005, p. 5). Aboriginal people have the lowest standard of living of any group in Canada, and poverty among Aboriginal children causes a cascade of harmful outcomes. he scale of Indigenous poverty is appalling: half of First Nations children live below the poverty line, and the number grows to 62% in Manitoba and 64% in Saskatchewan (BRITAIN & BLACKSTOCK, 2015).
Aborig-inal children up to the age of ive have no access to regulated childcare services, even though “such programs are vital to support the develop-ment of young children and, by extension, address some of the deicit in parenting skills that is the legacy of residential schools” (TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION OF CANADA, 2016, p. 152).
ADVOCACY FOR RURAL CHILDCARE
Rural communities have organized to promote their interests. One of the most efective groups was Rural Voices, an advocacy group that helped rural communities learn from each other’s experiences setting up care programs8. Another was Communities Achieving Responsive
Services (CARS). CARS was a project designed to increase the participa-tion of mothers in the development and delivery of local services in rural, remote and northern communities across Canada. he project trained at least two young mothers in every province, equipping them with skills and conidence to improve services and supports for children and fami-lies in their home community. he Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (CCAAC) has consistently called for services for all Canadians, wherever they live. he Native Women’s Association of Canada has rec-ommended for a national Aboriginal Early Learning and Child Council (NWAC, 2005).
One national summit on rural childcare ended with a call for action, based on the principle that
In the past decades, most advocacy initiatives that relied on non-proit organizations and volunteers fell victim to the fa-milialist and conservative vision of recent national governments, which used austerity logic to defund and delegitimize equity-seek-ing groups. he Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006-2015) eroded the capacity and efectiveness of many civil society organizations. Sadly, Rural Voices and CARS have shut down (and their websites no longer function). he CCAAC has been hobbled by lack of funding as well. One review of rural childcare concluded that, despite many promising pilot studies and innova-tive model development, “little of permanence had been achieved” (BROWNELL, 2000, p. 7). Nevertheless, advocates continue to pro-mote a national childcare framework that will be responsive to needs of all Canadians — including rural and northern Canada and Indig-enous communities (CCAAC et al., 2015).
CONCLUSION
Outside urban centres, rural and northern Canadian chil-dren and families face major challenges inding childcare. Services are inaccessible and often fail to meet the scheduling needs of rural fam-ilies; fees are high; and the quality is low as qualiied early childcare educators are scarce. While this scenario is disadvantageous to all Ca-nadians, the impact on Aboriginal children and families is especially troubling. he explanation for why this crisis persists lies in the archi-tecture of Canadian federalism, and the country’s political history as a liberal welfare regime. Across the country, advocates and stakeholders have experimented with a range of pilot models and explored lexible and innovative delivery systems, yet the challenge of rural and north-ern childcare remains. Despite reams of research on the importance of childcare services to rural people and their economies, rural Canadians, like all Canadians, lack the services they need.
evi-dence-based and lexible enough to meet the needs of all” (FRIENDLY
et al., 2016). Yet the deeply rooted arrangements of federalism, and the legacy of liberalism, pose nearly insurmountable barriers. Nev-ertheless, there is reason to hope that the policy architecture can be shifted. As women continue their unstoppable participation in paid labour and as reconciliation eforts with Aboriginal people assume new urgency, provincial and national governments will face increas-ing pressure to act.
he pressure is being felt. Newly elected Prime Minister Jus-tin Trudeau’s irst budget declared that “for Canadian families, high quality, afordable child care is more than a convenience — it’s a ne-cessity” (GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2016, p. 101). Explaining that the Government recognizes the “deep connection between child care and the economic security of families,” it committed signiicant new funds (GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2016, p. 101). he Liberal government — after years of inaction and cutbacks under Conserva-tives — dedicated $400 million in 2017-2018 to childcare services, with an additional $100 million for on-reserve Aboriginal childcare. Even more importantly, the federal government has said it will “work with provinc-es, territories and Indigenous peoples to establish a National Framework on Early Learning and Child Care that meets...the needs of Canadian families wherever they live.” (GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2016, p. 101). Canadian children and families must hope this government lives up to its promise.
REFERENCES
ALBANESE, P.; FARR, T. “I’m Lucky”. to Have Found Childcare: Evoking Luck While Managing Child Care Needs in a Changing Ecnomy. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, v. 3, n. 1, p. 83-111, 2012.
BALL, J. Early Childhood Care and Development Programs as Hook and Hub for Inter-sectoral Service Delivery in First Nations Communities. Journal of Aboriginal Health, v. 2, p. 26-50, mar. 2005.
BRITTAIN, M.; BLACKSTOCK, C. First Nations Child Poverty: A Literature Review and Analysis. Ottawa: First Nations Children’s Action Research and Education Services, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, 2015. Disponível em: <https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/iles/First Nations Child Poverty - A Literature Review and Analysis 2015-3.pdf>. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2017.
BROWNELL, B. Report of the Task Force on Rural Child Care and Early Childhood Education. Guelph: Task Force on Rural Childcare and Early Childhood Education, 2000.
BUSHNIK, T. Child Care in Canada: Research Paper. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2006.
CALHOUN, S.; OLFERT, M.; TSETSO, K. Canada’s New National Childcare Program: Ensuring the Rural Message is Heard. Ottawa: Canadian Rural Partnership Advisory Committee on Rural Issues, 2005.
CAMERON, B. Political Will, Child Care and Canadian Federalism. Our Schools/Our Selves, v. 18, n. 3, p. 129-144, 2009.
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL. First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v. Attorney General of Canada. Representing the Minister of Indian Afairs and Northern Development Canada. Ottawa, 2016.
CHILD CARE ADVOCACY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (CCAAC). Rural Child Care – We’re Worth it: Strategic Directions For Moving Ahead on a National Child Care Strategy for Rural, Remote and Northern Communities. Ottawa: Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, 2005. p. 1-13.
CHILD CARE ADVOCACY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (CCAAC); CHILDCARE RESOURCE AND RESEARCH UNIT; CANADIAN CHILD CARE FEDERATION; CAMPAIGN 2000. Shared Framework for Building an Early Childhood Education and Care System for All. Ottawa: Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Canadian Child Care Federation, Campaign 2000, 2015.
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW). Concluding Observations on the Combined Eighth and Ninth Periodic Reports of Canada. New York: United Nations, 2016.
EVERS, A.; PILJ, M.; UNGERSON, C. (Orgs.). Payments for Care. Avebury: Aldershot, UKed, 1994.
FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA. Canada Knows Better and is Not Doing Better: Discrimination against First Nations Children Receiving Child Welfare Services on Reserve and the Yukon. Report presented to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN. Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, 2015.
FRIENDLY, M. Canadian Early Learning and Child Care and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto, 2006.
FRIENDLY, M.; FERNS, C.; GRADY, B.; ROTHMAN, L. Child Care Can’t Wait Till the Cows Come Home: Rural Child Care in the Canadian Context. Occasional Paper No. 30. Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, 2016.
FRIENDLY, M.; GRADY, B.; MACDONALD, L.; FORER, B. Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2014. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, 2015.
FRIENDLY, M.; PRENTICE, S. About Canada: Childcare. Halifax: Fernwood, 2009.
FRIENDLY, M.; WHITE, L. “No-lateralism”: Paradoxes in Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in the Canadian Federation. In: BAKVIS, H.; SKOGSTAD, G. (Orgs.). Canadian Federalism: Performance, Efectiveness, and Legitimacy. 3. ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press Canada, 2012.
GALLOWAY, G. Canada Discriminated Against Children by Underfunding Services, Tribunal to Rule. Toronto: Globe and Mail, 2016.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. Growing the Middle Class: Federal Budget, 2016. Canada: Department of Finance, Government of Canada, 2016.
HERNES, H. Welfare State and Woman Power: Essays in State Feminism. Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1987.
JENSON, J. Family Policy, Child Care and Social Solidarity: he Case of Quebec. In: PRENTICE, S. (Org.). Changing Childcare: Five Decades of Childcare Policy and Advocacy in Canada. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2001.
KERSHAW, P.; FORER, B.; GOELMAN, H. Hidden Fragility: Closure Among Child Care Services in BC. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, v. 20, p. 417-432, 2005.
MACDONALD, D.; FRIENDLY, M. A Growing Concern: 2016 Child Care Fees in Canada’s Big Cities. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2016.
MALIK, R.; HAMM, K.; ADAMU, M.; MORRISSEY, T. Child Care Deserts: An Analysis of Child Care Centers by ZIP Code in 8 States. Washigton, D.C.: Center for American Progress, 2016.
MARTZ, D.; BAUER, R. Growing Minds: Building Quality Childcare Options In Rural Communities. Saskatoon and Regina: Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Unit, 2005.
MOAZZAMI, B. Strengthening Rural Canada: Fewer and Older – Population and Demographic Challenges Across Canada: A Pan-Canadian Report. Ottawa: Strengthening Rural Canda Initiative, Government of Canada’s Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program, 2015.
MORGAN, K. Child Care and the Liberal Welfare Regime: A Review Essay. Review of Policy Research, v. 20, n. 4, p. 743-748, 2003.
NATIVE WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (NWAC). Early Learning and Child Care: An Aboriginal Engagement Strategy - NWAC Discussion Paper. Akwesasne, Ontario: Native Women’s Association of Canada, 2005.
O’CONNOR, J.; ORLOFF, A.S.; SHAVER, S. States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD). OECD Regional Typology. Paris: OECD, Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development, 2011.
______. Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: Directorate for Education, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2006.
PRENTICE, S. High Stakes: he “Investable” Child and the Economic Reframing of Childcare. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, v. 34, n. 3, p. 687-710, 2009.
______. Northern Childcare: Childcare as Economic and Social Development in hompson. Winnipeg: Child Care Coalition of Manitoba, 2007a.
______. Rural Childcare: Childcare as Economic and Social Development in Parkland. Winnipeg: Child Care Coalition of Manitoba, 2007b.
______. he Business of Child Care: he Issue of Auspice. In: PROCHNER, L.; HOWE, N. (Orgs.). Early Childhood Care and Education in Canada: Past, Present and Future. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2000. p. 273-289.
PRENTICE, S.; SANSCARTIER, M.; PETER, T. Home Sweet Home? An Evidence-Based Analysis of Family Home Childcare in Manitoba: Working Paper. Winnipeg: Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba, 2016.
PRESTON, J. Early Childhood Education and Care for Aboriginal Children in Canada. Toronto: Moving Childcare Forward Project, 2014.
REIMER, B. Immigration in the New Rural Economy. In: ______ (Org.). Our Diverse Cities: Rural Cities: Metropolis Project, n. 3, 2007.
ROPPEL, C.; DESMARAIS, A.; MARTZ, D. Farm Women and Canadian Agricultural Policy. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 2006.
SQUIRES, R. Day-Care Use on the Rise: Pros Preferred Over Relatives. Winnipeg Sun. Winnipeg: 12 p. 2006.
STATISTICS CANADA. Canada’s Rural Population Since 1851: Population and Dwelling Counts, 2011. Census: Catalogue no. 98-310-X2011003. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011a.
______. Women in Canada: A Gender-Based Statistical Report. 6. ed. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011b. Disponível em: <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/89-503-x2010001-eng.htm>. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2017.
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION OF CANADA. Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report. Ottawa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2016.
WATSON, G. Rural Child Care in Canada: Directions for Farm Safety. Winnipeg: Canadian Agricultural Safety Association, 2001. Disponível em: <http://casa-acsa.ca/content/rural-child-care-report>. Acesso em: 20 Feb. 2017.
WHITE, L. Ideas and the Welfare State: Explaining Child Care Policy Development in Canada and the United States. Comparative Political Studies, v. 35, n. 6, p. 713-743, 2002.
WHITE, L.; FRIENDLY, M. Public Funding, Private Delivery: States, Markets, and Early Childhood Education and Care in Liberal Welfare States - A Comparison of Australia, the UK, Quebec, and New Zealand. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, v. 14, n. 4, p. 292-310, 2012.
NOTES
1. Nomenclature for Indigenous peoples is complex. Following the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society (BRITAIN & BLACKSTOCK, 2015), the following deinitions are used in this paper: Aboriginal is a constitutional term, used to describe persons and groups identifying as First Nations, Inuit or Métis. First Nations describes persons and collectivities who self-identify as First Nations (and who may or may not have Indian Status under the Indian Act, administered by Indigenous and Northern Afairs Canada). Indigenous is used as umbrella term, as a synonym for Aboriginal.
2. he vast majority of Canadian children receive non-parental care in unregulated settings, due the scarcity of licensed spaces: these may include care by kin or older siblings, neighbours, private nannies, self-care, as well as unregulated formal and informal settings. his paper focuses exclusively on regulated and licensed care.
3. he deinition of “rural” is contested. he Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, deines rural as an area with a population density of less than 150 persons per square kilometer (OECD, 2011). In this paper, it is used Statistic Canada’s deinition, while also including a discussion of northern issues.
4. In six of the 10 provinces of Canada, childcare is under oicial responsibility of the Department of Education. In the other four, this is a responsibility of the Ministry of Families and Social Services, or the province’s equivalent.
5. he name of this federal agency changes frequently.
7. his section indebted to the Childcare Resource and Research Unit’s Occasional Paper no. 30: (FRIENDLY et al., 2016).
8. See, for example, https://ccaacacpsge.iles.wordpress.com/2014/09/rural_eng.pdf.
